My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results.
But this is simply not the case: you have been unable demonstrate this by your refusal to support your assertion with any examples.
Your position is that creation science is no diiferent from science but your refusal to show (with examples of a creationsit scientic peer revied article) that this is the case prevents anyone from being swayed to your position.
I've been reading both these threads and would be willing to see your point (as I'm sure other on this site would be)
if you could give me some reason to.
I'm sure many creationist on this site would be as fascinated as I would be to see a creationist piece of peer reviewed research.
™ Version 4.2
